Square footage. And again no permits for five years. And all penalties go to the s. F. Small sites fund. So we do have some concerns about penalties and fines under section 319 and 317. Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the planning code, which are handled t
The height scale forms and architectural details of the entire surrounding neighborhood, as the neighborhood itself is quite mixed. The project, although it did add density, it did not add affordability equal to or greater than the existing building being demolished. So it wouldnt be approvable under that criteria. And the units, although similarly sized and with similar exposure, full floor flat plus down, and the other is floor floor unit and up, it exceeds the cap placed in the ordinance. Both roughly 2,000 square feet each. And lastly, the project includes the garage, which is also prohibited under this ordinance. Under section 319, just to sort of weave in all of the implication of this project, some of the criteria are redundant. It wouldnt be permitted under 319, as it adds a new garage. Architectural features are inherently, because its a demo, all of them are being removed. Thats a criteria that makes it prohibited from being approved. The project is less affordable. And the r
Previous Floor Area Ratio and Square Footage. And again no permits for five years. And all penalties go to the s. F. Small sites fund. So we do have some concerns about penalties and fines under section 319 and 317. Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the plan
Adjacent buildings, that it contains a gable roof, like several on the block. It contains a raised entry, like several on the block. And it contains some doublehung fixed encasement windows, all of which are found throughout the neighborhood. Therefore, doesnt meet that criteria of the ordinance. The project, although compatible with the mixed character, does not prescriptively conform with the height scale forms and architectural details of the entire surrounding neighborhood, as the neighborhood itself is quite mixed. The project, although it did add density, it did not add affordability equal to or greater than the existing building being demolished. So it wouldnt be approvable under that criteria. And the units, although similarly sized and with similar exposure, full floor flat plus down, and the other is floor floor unit and up, it exceeds the cap placed in the ordinance. Both roughly 2,000 square feet each. And lastly, the project includes the garage, which is also prohibited un
Some of the largest concerns are about the undefined terms and unaccessible day that we need to have to implement this code section. Were also concerned about the entirety of the penalties being collected, except for our time and material costs being diverted away from our Code Enforcement fund. Thats a fund that our department relies on to continue our Code Enforcement work in the first place. Most importantly, not being able to seek a permit for five years, if youre found to be in violation, we worry that may lead to buildings falling into disreplayer or Property Owners abandoning those buildings all together, if they determine the cost to legalize the work and wait to go through the new approval process isnt going to pencil. So going into all other violations of the planning code, which are handled through section 176. So it would increase the daily fine from up to 250 a day to up to 1,000 im sorry, to 1,000 a day. There would be no discretion, a straight 1,000 fine. And the board o